Does 1 Corinthians 8:6 teach Unitarianism? [closed]

Question

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. 1 Corinthians 8:6 ESV

To me it looks like Paul is saying that the one being of God is shared only by the Father.

The fact that Jesus is called the one Lord can be hard to reconcile with the rest of the Scripture if Unitarianism is true. Let's propose that only Jesus is the lord of the Christians (and not God The Father) how can we as Trinitarians reconcile the fact that "there is one God, the Father" with the doctrine of the trinity (One BEING of God shared by Three distinct PERSONS) Is the term God used here for a being or a person?

I don't see how we can argue that the one Lord here is meant to be understood as "one YHWH" (See the idea that Paul expanded Deutronomy 6:4 in 1 Corinthians 8:6) because it is clear that Paul is drawing a line between the the lords/gods from 1 Corinthians 8:5 and we can't say that 1 Corinthians 8:5 should be understood as "many YHWH's and many gods".

Does the context and origianl language allow for the translation "one God the Father...and one Lord Jesus Christ? (Without the commas)

I looked to many commentaries and no one gave me a satisfying answer, please help!

P.S. I believe the doctrine of the Trinity

Answer 1

It's certain that the Apostle Paul was intimately familiar with the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), which ends in one of the Hebrew words for "one" . . .

"Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."

The last word in that central declaration of Judaism in Hebrew is echad, which means one in unity (or a royal unity). It does not end with the word yachid, which means one in singularity.

But, Paul wrote in Greek.

True, but let's see what word was chosen for the Septuagint translation of Torah, which was popular in Paul's day. In the Septuagint, the same word for one (heis) is used. So, the distinction between God as unity versus singularity existed in the Jewish cultural context, but not in the Greek translations.

The concept of the echad of God can be observed in Genesis 1:2, referring to the personification of the Spirit of God hovering/bearing/moving over the water, and in a Psalm of David, Psalm 51:11 (NASB)

Do not cast me away from Your presence and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

Here David implores God not to take His presence in the form of the Holy Spirit away from him, again demonstrating the concept of echad.

What about Jesus? Does he make this distinction? Consider Mark 3:28-29 (NASB)

Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

So here, you have five witnesses: three in the Tenach and two in the New Covenant that Paul was invoking an echad. Finally, a similar declaration can be examined in Ephesians 4:4-6 (NASB):

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Echad.

Answer 2

"To me it looks like Paul is saying that the one being of God is shared only by the Father."

No, because Jesus says in John 17:3:

Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Father is often referred to as simply God. Basically, the only true God is YHVH. So since the Father is YHVH, He is indeed the only true God. But Jesus Himself is also identified as YHVH. As is the Spirit.

In other words, Scripture uses the convention of calling God the Father simply God, and the Son, the Son of God, and the Spirit, the Spirit of God—even though separately they are each called this one God, too (after all, how could "the wisdom and power of God" or "the Spirit of God" be created?). For example, in Revelation, Jesus calls the Father 'God', even though just chapters earlier He calls Himself the First and the Last, claims to be the one who judges the minds and hearts and smite people with death, Even during His ministry He claimed that He Himself was the Way, the Truth and the Life. Something not even an angel would dare to say.

"Let's propose that only Jesus is the lord of the Christians"

We don't need to, St. Jude already has:

Jude 1:4

For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

"I don't see how we can argue that the one Lord here is meant to be understood as "one YHWH"

HO KYRIOS or ADONAI was never exactly synymous with YHVH, nor did it ever meant it. It was used to designate 'YHVH' when the practice of repalacing or protecting the sacredness of the nomena sacra came about. It doesn't mean it. It means master or lord, and when that Master/Lord is God, it gets capitalized letters by translators.

This is why you see 'Lord GOD,' when in the original languages it said "The Master/Lord YHVH." Or LORD God, when in the original langauges it said "YHVH, God."

'Lord', then, is a happy medium which can refer to God and can refer to men, and is proper to men, and is proper to God. It's not surprising, then, when St. Paul and the rest of Scripture calls Jesus Lord, and treats Him as God, the term can be used comfortably in the recognition of the hypostatic union, that our Lord is not only God, but man also. So a better term for Jesus, and the one used in Scripture, is 'Lord', meaning He has dominion both as touches His divinity, primarily, and thus in His humanity also is Master over other lords. When you think about it, St. Paul, nor anyone who beleives in the Trinity, would never say 'but there is one God the Father and one God the Son.' It implies two Gods. But saying there is one God, and that His Son is also Lord, we recognize that He came forth from the Father and is God by that fact, and is called Son for that reason also, and enjoys all that is proper to his nature as the same being as the Father.

"The fact that Jesus is called the one Lord can be hard to reconcile with the rest of the Scripture if Unitarianism is true."

Indeed, because we as Christians acknowledge only one Sovereign and Lord, Jesus Christ, who then must be God. There can't be two 'only Sovereign and Lord's. Only God is our Lord.

---

Does the context and original language allow for the translation "one God the Father...and one Lord Jesus Christ? (Without the commas)

1 Corinthians 8:6 DRB

For although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many, and lords many); yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Since "of whom are all things, and we unto him" and "by whom are all things, and we by him" are different and seem to be the roles (in this particular instance and sentence) proper to the Father and the Son, respectively, it seems that the commas are necessary, even without looking deeper into the Greek itself.

Answer 3

Trinitarians cannot reconcile this verse, because according to them the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God together, while this verse specifies the Father alone as being God who is above all. You shouldn't force the scripture to fit your doctrine, you should force your doctrine to fit the scripture. the bible doesn't teach a trinity, it also does not teach Unitarianism. All this confusion comes from the modern word "God", let me explain.

If we look up the modern english definition of God, this is what we get:

Merriam-Webster Definition of god: 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

Dictionary.com Definition of god: noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

This is what we have been programed to think when we hear the word God, but it is actually a completely different word and definiton from the ancient title אֱלֹהִים (Alahym/ Elohim) which is used in the Old testament scriptures. WHen we look at the Strongs concordance defintion of Alahym we get something different than the modern definiton:

Strongs Hebrew #430

1 plural in number.

a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power: האלהים Exodus 21:6 (Onk ᵑ6, but τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ᵐ5) Exodus 22:7; Exodus 22:8; אלהים Exodus 22:8; Exodus 22:27 (ᵑ7 Ra AE Ew RVm; but gods, ᵐ5 Josephus Philo AV; God, Di RV; all Covt. code of E) compare 1 Samuel 2:25 see Dr.; Judges 5:8 (Ew, but gods ᵐ5; God ᵑ6 BarHebr.; יהוה ᵑ9 Be) Psalm 82:1; Psalm 82:6 (De Ew Pe; but angels Bl Hup) Psalm 138:1 (ᵑ6 ᵑ7 Rab Ki De; but angels ᵐ5 Calv; God, Ew; gods, Hup Pe Che).

b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels Psalm 8:6 (De Che Br; but angels ᵐ5 ᵑ6 ᵑ7 Ew; God, RV and most moderns) Genesis 1:27 (if with Philo ᵑ7 Jerome De Che we interpret נעשה as God's consultation with angels; compare Job 38:7).

c. angels Psalm Job 97:7 (ᵐ5 ᵑ6 Calv; but gods, Hup De Pe Che); compare בני (ה)אלהים = (the) sons of God, or sons of gods = angels Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Genesis 6:2,4 (J; so ᵐ5 Books of Enoch & Jubilees Philo Jude Jude 1:6 2Peter 2:4 JosAnt. i. 3. 1, most ancient fathers and modern critics; against usage are sons of princes, mighty men, Onk and Rab.; sons of God, the pious, Theod Chrys Jerome Augustine Luther Calv Hengst; ᵐ5L read οἱ υιὁὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ), compare בני אלים.

The orginal title Alahym does not mean "one supreme being who created all things", not even close.

Alahym is a title of divine authority given to the Most High. It is a title also given to angels and high men of authority to judge in Israel. And last, but certainly not least, it is a title given to the Son by the Father Himself.

Examples of times Alahym is used for men of authority in Israel:

Exodus 21:6 (KJV) "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges(אֱלֹהִים= Alahym); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 22:8-9 (KJV) "8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges(אֱלֹהִים= Alahym); and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

1 Samuel 2:25 " If one man sin against another, the judge(אֱלֹהִים= Alahym) shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

Psalm 82:6 " I have said, Ye are gods(אֱלֹהִים= Alahym) ; and all of you are children of the most High. ( This one was quoted by Yahuwshuwa ( Jesus) in John 10:34 and he directed it toward the jews)

Example of Alahym used for angels:

Psalm 8:5 "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (אֱלֹהִים= Alahym), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Alahym means ruler and judge reflecting divine majesty and authority. It means mighty one, its transalted as mighty one in the KJV. It was a title given to men in the position of authority in Israel to rule and judge the Most High's people according to his divine law. To be representatives of Yahuwah (YHWH). It was given to angels because of their divine authourty to work the Father's will with mankind.

If even sinful men were given the title Alahym because of their authority to rule, judge, and represent divine authority, how much more does the Son Yahuwshuwa HaMashiyach fulfill this title, being King of king and judge of the world, the very definition of the title. Being the ultimate representative, He is the very Word and image of the Father, that has been given all authority in heaven and earth.

In psalm 45, a prophecy of the Messiah, we see the Father calling the Son Alahym:

Psalm 45:5-6 " 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

So we see here the Father being Alahym, while he also calls his Son Alahym. Yahuwshuwa calls His Father "the only true God" (John 17:3) because His Father is Ruler over all and above all, the one who gives authority. The Son even said the Father is greater than I am, and that the Son can do nothing without the Father, and that he learned all things from the Father.

The scriptures does not teach a trinity, the Apostle John taught in the beginning was the Word with the Father, and the Word was Alahym with the Father. The Father created all things through His Word/Son. They are two, but one in spirit and will. The Holy Spirit is not a third person of a trinity ( a word not even in the bible), the Spirit is the very power,life, will, essence, and breathe of Alahym sent forth performing His will.

So now that we have the correct understanding of the title Alahym, we can properly interpret Pauls words. lets put 1 Corinthians 8 in context:

1 Corinthians 8:4-7

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

So Paul is speaking about eating meats offered to idol, and how the gentiles worship many gods and lords. This is a reference to the Old testament where the gentiles worshiped false alahym and baalim (lords). So Paul then connects that to saying there is only one Alahym and one Lord. When he says there is "one Lord" is he saying the Son is the only one with the title Lord? No, i can show you hundreds of verses where the Father and other respected men of Israel are called Lord. When it says there " is one God" is it saying that no one else has that title? no, i already proved others were given that title.

What Paul is doing is showing the Hierarchy, showing the Father is ruler and above all, who has anointed his Son to be Lord of all creation. The Son follows the will of the Father, not the other way around.